To think that non-binary candidates are more unlikely to be offered a job?

[GinnyPiggie]

I have a non-binary child in their twenties and they are really struggling to secure work.

It might be unfair of me, but I really think that in presenting themselves as non-binary, they are going to struggle to be offered a job with the vast majority of employers. Yes this might be pure discrimination but personally I'd be worried about HR issues and getting sued for saying the wrong thing.

AIBU to think that if you have a range of good candidates, you are going to be reluctant to hire a non-binary candidate because of the potential for issues in the office?

DadJoke

People are or are not non-binary. It's not something people are "attracted to."
It's reallly not much of a mental burden to use the correct pronouns,

Except that when it is against someone else's beliefs, we get in to compelled speech which would be wrong.

and it's an age thing. Younger people really don't have an issue with it.

Except that most do and its only a small vocal group that are not

I remember people complaining they couldn't pronounce ethnic minority names and complaining about it.

Not even remotely the same.

Just don't make a big deal of it - NB don't.

Yet NB people do, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

Plenty of disabled people need accommodation, too. I have a deaf colleague who lip reads, so I have to face him when I am talking to him. I assume that would too much for you, too?

Not remotely the same.

Anyone who thinks this wouldn’t matter in a job interview is kidding themselves on.

One of the things all employers look for an in interview is team fit. How well will this person get on with the rest of the team? How does their personality mesh with others etc.

Some employers might think that other team members would struggle with the pronouns etc for a non binary person, and they might be concerned that that is jeopardising go that staff member as well as upsetting for the non binary person.

There will be a perception that hiring a non binary person just opens up the potential for loads of HR issues that they don’t need to deal with when hiring someone who identifies as male or female.

BTW I dont agree with any of these points of view. I have never interviewed a non binary person but I would hire them if they had the necessary skills for my team. However these attitudes are absolutely out there in places of employment and would be more prominent in certain sectors.

I'm not condoning horrible treatment if that is what happened. As I said before, if this person did suffer harassment and bullying then that is wrong, whatever we might privately think about non binary identities.

But the part of the decision about parliament intending gender reassignment to be a spectrum which includes non binary identities is wrong in law and it isn't binding on anyone. That's what "persuasive" means, in a legal context. Essentially it means you are not required to follow it.

Not sure what attitude you're referring to. All I'm saying is that being non binary isn't a protected characteristic, because it isn't. Obviously I wouldn't say the same about, for example, a pregnant woman, because being pregnant is actually a protected characteristic, so saying it isn't one would be factually wrong.

This.

Not to mention I understood from recent case law that being gender critical is a protected characteristic (within beliefs), so this is complex on both sides and best avoided by focusing on qualifications and experience to do the job.

Your quote totally reinforces what @MissScarletInTheBallroom said:

"The only way to actually explain it is that non binary identifying people don't identify with the regressive stereotypes that society chooses to attach to men and women.
OK, fine.
But loads of other people don't identify with those stereotypes, without pretending they're neither male nor female. Most people don't conform to them in fact. In truth, the people who uphold and entrench those stereotypes the most are the very same people who think they're challenging traditional received wisdom about gender by identifying as trans or non binary."

It doesn't fall under a protected characteristic.

Also, how would you know whether you've never experienced this? There could be any number of people who've lied about their sexuality, religious beliefs or gender identity on a form. You might not even see that information in the first place, much less be in a position to assess whether it was truthful or not.

Agreed. I'd also be concerned about the compelled speech affecting customers, suppliers, service users, students or whoever else the employee might be coming into contact with. All sorts of relationships could be affected.

I'm with Gaudete - would consider a NB person who insisted on telling me about it to be dim, also likely immature and having some sort of personality disorder involving wanting to be the centre of attention.

Surely an interview is about displaying the skills that you have, not displaying your political, religious or sexual or gender views? All of these things contribute to a sense of 'self' but are not generally relevant to the interview process.

OP it sounds like your child is making the interview about they/them rather than about work/company.

Surely part of your job is also to select someone that will fit the team dynamic and cause the least amount of disruption for the work to be done,

Just checked, protected characteristics are not shared in the application process. There is an indication for guaranteed interview for disabled candidates.

I believe im open minded and I don’t have any issues with the ideology and provided they interviewed well I’d overlook this, BUT if I were interviewing alongside a colleague, as is the norm and they made the points on this thread about what it says of someone priorities, I probably would have second thoughts. Are you going to show them this thread?

Id say as long as they have the skills etc, then thats all that should matter ?

@MissScarletInTheBallroom literally says she doesn't know what being non-binary is, and by her definition 90% of people are non-binary. She has no idea what she is talking about. It's not "the only way to explain it" at all. And they are not "pretending," any more than gay people are pretending.

Kevin is an unusual name for a woman...

lol

This is one of the justifications people who discriminate against hiring pregnant women use.

Non binary females always have unbelievably poor mental health in my experience. A business I was tangentially involved with employed one and she was forever off with stress brought on by really normal working experiences. I felt sorry for her but it’s not very attractive to a small company

This is my experience too. Spend a lot of the work day attending meetings and discussing pride events rather than actually working.

Yep. I don't think people always realise how important it is to be accurate about what the law is. Someone who actually understands the law explaining that it doesn't work the way you want it to isn't being nasty, they're doing you a favour. It's just plain fact that first tier tribunal judgements aren't binding or persuasive on this issue. Those words have a legal meaning.

People thinking they have rights that they don't is actually really problematic, ask any lawyer. To take one example that comes up on here a lot, unmarried cohabitants who think living together gives you more rights than it does. There are lots of others.

If they have it mentioned on their CV and in their cover letter you may want to ask them how serious are they about getting a job?
Employers aren't interested in their private life, they want people who act professionally and get the job done.
Maybe try roll playing an interview with them, see what kind of things they are saying to the interviewer. Introducing themselves as "male name, he/him" is ridiculous.
Hi I'm "male name" is just fine there are women through the ages with male names. I was at nursing school with a woman called Michael back in 1980, no one batted an eyelid. declaring the he/him part makes her seem self centred and unprofessional.

It sounds more like an interview etiquette issue.
We shortlist with no regard to names it’s done against criteria.
In interviews I’d say something like good afternoon Kevin and introduce myself and colleague by name. I wouldn’t say my pronouns and would find it odd for a candidate to state theirs in that setting.
No interviewer is going to say Kevin you look like a woman I thought I was interviewing a bloke they’ll just say thank you for coming and crack on with interview.

I wouldn’t invite someone to interview if they had pronouns or other identity information on their CV.

I'm actually staggered by this.

for the past couple of years organisations have been on an almighty bandwagon with their employees:

"why pronouns are important"

he/him, she/her, they/them on everyone's autosignature and on LinkedIn

"bring your whole self to work"

Diversity and Inclusion etc

And yet here we are, saying that someone who will expect to "bring their whole self to an interview" won't get past first base.

baffling.

There's a lot of research to suggest that scientific collaborations with women have declined dramatically since the pandemic and the influx/prevalence of feminism because men are 'nervous' of saying/doing the wrong thing. So their solution is simply to avoid all contact with women in the workplace. I'd imagine the same can be said for trans, non-binary, etc etc.

That is a good point. If you’re always worried about someone getting offended and trying to cancel you/ruining your career, the safest thing to do is stay well away.

I have applied for some roles that say if you are disabled or LGBTQ etc (which I assume includes NB), you are guaranteed an interview if you meet the minimum criteria.

What makes you as a non binary person part of the LGBT community?